Workmen's advocate. (New Haven, Conn.) 1883-1891, 1887-08-20

which IL. tieOrgc makes the landlord
tool, nay even the central figure of
exploitation. We make legislation
responsible for all exploitations, and
the working people for the toleration
Of such laws.
3. 1t is a self-contradiction, when
George says. we could not clearly de-
fine the term "capltal," and when
he Immediately after quotes clear
definition which he has found in one
Of our writings, and which runs rs
follows
"Capital is that portion of wealth en-
ployed productivity with vier to profit
by the sale of the product In this
definition one proposition only Is lett
out Which With us never is forgotten
and hich says and ahich commonly
originates from profit, /. from laaful
robbery of the fruit of labor.
6. The other self-contradiction
which we have often pointed out in
II. Georges opinions, that he does
not with us declare land-tltles also
to be capital, while he treats of
"land" where the question is one of
and-titles only-we must call the
fnndamentai error of this gentleman.
Land cannot be sold or mortgaged
before there are property titles to it
which the State ordains and pro-
tects. What is bought protected
and used for exacting rent is not
the land, but the property title to it.
If | do not buy this title along with
it, the land may be taken from me,
and my purchase money may be lost,
my land becomes worthless for me.
In other words: land becomes an ex-
change value--and in Political Econ
omy the question is about e.echange
ralues only (in each of which a aalue
Of use is presupposed) by the same
State legislation only which likewise
ordains property titles in money, in
inventions, discoveries and other
capital. Not to know this when one
constitutes himself q teacher of Po-
ltical Economy, is an almost in
credible ignorance of its fundamental
truth. In short, property titles in
land are capital. Land without such
is not capital lis not even wealthy.
Sale by land-titles gives to landlords
as much power of exploitation as
they happen to have not the whole
by far) but State titles are just as
necessary to property in all great
means of labor in any form, if it is
to be secure, and all these property
titles are inter-conyertible Exchange
able).
2. II. George charges us with in
consistency because we do not call
tools of workers likewise capital.
But workers tools are not wealth,
and can, therefore, not be styled
capital. Besides, the worker under
capitalistic institutions becomes him
self more and more the servant of a
machine and is provided, usually
now, with all his tools by some
capitalist employer. 1t is an i'm
proper (poeticaD sense only that
simple tools may be called capital.
George himself is inconsistent, if he
does that without seeing that a work
man owner of nothing but tools
plays very ludicrous part among
capitalists.
8. A hundred times wc-and not
the Folhszeit,ag onIy--have pro-
tested against the inslnuation that
the Social Democrats wished to rem
der the State the sole employer. II.
George rehashes this assertion re-
peatedly, because he knows that with
the widely-spread prejudice against
a "paternal or centralized govern
ment" great effect upon Anglo
Americans may be realized, to deter
them from the study of Socialism.
With just as much right we could
like the Mugwump papers-denounce
Georges plan of confiscation of the
land values and of the railroads and
means of transportation as a plan to
smuggle in paternal government and
a centralized administration. We
might even denounce bis proposition
to coniiscate the land values without
any compensation to the owners, as
revolutionary" But We do not do
so; for what pleases us best in
Georges theories is just that refusal
of compensation for an old property
wrong IAN old robber right which
is to be abolished. But we are con-